Obama; US forces only “air-raiding” Afghan civilians

| August 15, 2007

I wonder what was going through Barack Obama’s mind Monday when he decided to declare that US forces in Afghanistan were “air-raiding” Afghan villages.

“We’ve got to get the job done there,” he said of Afghanistan. “And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”

First of all, I’m not sure “air-raiding” is even a word – I know it’s not a word anyone I’ve ever met would use. It must be one of those pseudo-warrior words that pin heads use to make other pin heads think they might know something about air strikes.

And if all we’re doing is “air-raiding” villages and homes in Afghanistan, what is the 10th Mountain Division (the Army’s premier light infantry division) doing in Afghanistan? I’ll grant that they have 10th Aviation Brigade for support – but only inasmuch as it aids the infantry battalions with lift and fire missions. 

I think Obama is just painfully inexperienced in military matters, even more than most Senators. I wonder when the last time he was in Afghanistan, and I wonder where he gets the idea that the US is only “air-raiding” Afghan homes – probably from his equally ignorant staff weinies.

Now, our air attacks on Serbia – that was problematic, i wonder where he stands on that fiasco?

I get the distinct impression that Obama thinks he’s getting elected to President based purely on the color of his skin, because he hasn’t really made an effort to learn anything about the job, or the matters involved in being President. From the Washington Examiner;

The flap comes three weeks after Obama promised that if elected president, he would meet without pre-conditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. That pledge was called “irresponsible and frankly naive” by rival Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Eight days later, eager to rebut Clinton’s charge, Obama said that as president, he might send U.S. troops into Pakistan to fight terrorists not targeted by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” he vowed.

Critics called this overly hawkish, prompting Obama to modulate again the next day by ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” he told the AP before pausing.

“Involving civilians,” he added. “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

That’s the backpedaling of a campaign that’s unprepared to advance their candidate on anything more than his visage. It’s clear to me that the people in Obama’s campaign staff would prefer that he just stand on stage silently while supporters throw money and votes at him. And you know you suck if Hillary Clinton calls you stupid.

It’s equally clear that Obama never had any intention of doing anything towards cultivating his image as leader – like John Kerry and Al Gore before him, he just felt he deserved to be President and we ought to just give it to him.

Here’s a candidate that’s obviously a Class I Dullard – when will the media begin to portray him as such? If he were Republican, it’d already be a foregone conclusion.

Category: Foreign Policy, Media, Politics, Terror War

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kate

Classic Dem, schizo on foreign policy even prior to getting elected. I wish I saw Obama’s face after Hillary’s comment; I bet it resembled something similar to a deer in headlights. He makes a completely irresponsible statement, and prior to Hillary’s much-needed tongue-lashing, he looks like a moron to people who even barely follow foreign policy and politics; post-comment, he looks like an idiot to Hillary’s camp, then tries to renege this in the way of making a strong (read: stupid) comment about Pakistan. So, all in all, Obama might not have made the best showing with these declarations…

The Dems certainly do have a bunch of winners as candidates…

Jonn Lilyea wrote: I’ll grant you that last one, Kate. However the Republicans aren’t looking much better. It’s gonna be tough to pull levers for anyone, honestly. We need a hero.

Laurie

Or else he wants everyone to believe he is playing to the dumb public. You know, us unwashed masses that don’t know any better 😉

Kate

Oh, I don’t even want to talk about the Republicans now. I just wanted to limit the comment to the Dems, since they are the two in question in this entry. We are indeed in dire straits…

incognit

It’s called trying to appeal to everyone and not doing a very good job of it.
He wants to appear hawkish but not Republican-like hawkish.

GI JANE

What. A. Dumb. Ass. Does he even realize how imbecilic that is? Every military asscociated person just let out a huge groan, or in my case a few choice epithets. He has no clue about operations in Afghanistan or anywhere else. Jeeeezustapdancinchrist. Can the dems possibly get any more stuck on stupid?